The King James Authoritarian Conspiracy And The Political Legitimacy of Monarchy

In his book, "The True Law of Free Monarchies", King James wrote about the "Divine right of kings." The Divine right of kings states:

"The divine right of kings, divine right, or God's mandate is a political and religious doctrine of royal and political legitimacy. It asserts that a monarch is subject to no earthly authority, deriving the right to rule directly from the will of God. The king is thus not subject to the will of his people, the aristocracy, or any other estate of the realm. It implies that only God can judge an unjust king and that any attempt to depose, dethrone or restrict his powers runs contrary to the will of God and may constitute a sacrilegious act. It is often expressed in the phrase "by the Grace of God", attached to the titles of a reigning monarch."

en.wikipedia.org...

Now given the omnipotent nature of God, does anyone else find it funny that the King James version of the Bible shows God's rule to be identical to the that of what King James was espousing. It seems to me an omnipotent God who needs absolutely nothing from us would be a tad more egalitarian in his divine form of government. I just find it very unlikely an omnipotent God would be seeking authority worship. This seems to me to be some kind of King James propaganda, that parts of the Bible were rewritten, in order to serve his political thinking of the Divine right of the king.

It just seems to me if the Bible is truly the inspired word of God, that it would have a more egalitarian form of government. It seems to me the Bible is written with a particular type of government as its agenda.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
It just seems to me if the Bible is truly the inspired word of God, that it would have a more egalitarian form of government. It seems to me the Bible is written with a particular type of government as its agenda.

I agree. There was some genius a couple of weeks ago arguing that the United States was in violation of God's will because of the Revolution and disobeying King George III.

Humans will change anything they can to fit their agenda.
There are also much better versions of the Bible.
But I am not too proud to stop praising God.


Thankfully, freedom of religion helps us worship however we see fit.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I think the concept of reign by divine right is a bit older than James I.

a reply to: dfnj2015
The flaw in your theory is that the "King James" version of the Bible has the same content as the Bibles published in all the other countries of Europe at the same time, the same content as the Bibles available in the previous thousand years or so.
There is no content peculiar to that book (unless you count the preface), so nothing has been added. People would have noticed.

a reply to: dfnj2015

Divine rule, appointment by God. All megalomaniacs say that stuff. The worst of European rule was when the church and state combined to rule 'in the name of God'.

We do it too today, we say stuff like "God is on our side" or pass the hat by saying, "ts Gods Will".

Even worse, "Our God is the only true God".

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: dfnj2015
It just seems to me if the Bible is truly the inspired word of God, that it would have a more egalitarian form of government. It seems to me the Bible is written with a particular type of government as its agenda.

I agree. There was some genius a couple of weeks ago arguing that the United States was in violation of God's will because of the Revolution and disobeying King George III.

I was thinking exactly the same thing about our Declaration of Independence and the idea that many of founder fathers were deists precisely because of King Jame's idea of the Divine right of kings.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
a reply to: dfnj2015
The flaw in your theory is that the "King James" version of the Bible has the same content as the Bibles published in all the other countries of Europe at the same time, the same content as the Bibles available in the previous thousand years or so.
There is no content peculiar to that book (unless you count the preface), so nothing has been added. People would have noticed.

The thing is, was what they were translating from altered to serve the political aims of the monarchy. I find it really hard to believe Jesus was just crucified over the splitting of hairs of church doctrine. But something as radical as you do not have to buy your absolution from the temple would certain be upsetting to the aristocracy.

It's hard to prove a negative. I just find it very odd that divine rule matches so closely to a particular type of government.

a reply to: intrptr

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

Good one.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: intrptr

"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition."

Good one.

We name our bombs after Mom.

MOAB is the 'mother' of all bombs. We should by rights name it the God of all Bombs, or "Lord Bomb", or something.

"They worship the damn thing."

originally posted by: dfnj2015
The thing is, was what they were translating from altered to serve the political aims of the monarchy.

No, there were no political changes in the translation either, and the proof of that statement is that nobody noticed any at the time. I repeat, they would have been noticed

I find it really hard to believe Jesus was just crucified over the splitting of hairs of church doctrine. But something as radical as you do not have to buy your absolution from the temple would certain be upsetting to the aristocracy.
It's hard to prove a negative. I just find it very odd that divine rule matches so closely to a particular type of government.

Whatever you find hard to believe, the fact remains that any such alterations would have been noticed at the time. For a start, there were eagle-eyed Roman Catholic controversialists ready to pounce on any holes in protestant teaching. Any alterations would have been a gift- "Look at those evil Protestants, making changes even in the text of the Bible". So the fact that nobody noticed any changes is the first proof that there were none.

After all, alterations would have been easy enough to spot. It would have been a simple matter of comparing that Bible with the other Bibles available in the rest of Europe.
For that matter, we can make the same comparison now. Any "political" texts you care to identify are also available in all the other translations of the Bible- Latin, French, Spanish, Norwegian...ad infinitum. Do you really think those translations all copied their text from the English version? Of course they didn't!

That brings me to the second "proof of a negative". The best evidence that there were no alterations is that you can't put your finger on a single example. Not one. You can't find any. I challenge you now to find a single "political" text that isn't also in the Latin and French and Spanish versions.

What is happening, I think, is that you are confusing "cause" and "effect". If the Bible text is similar to the opinion of James, that will be because the opinion of James was influenced by the Bible text, not the other way round. The evidence for that claim is that the Bible text came first, by about a thousand years.
Do you resemble your father? if so, do you think that is because your father inherited his features from you? Or is it the other way round? In the relation between cause and effect, the cause is always the one that comes first.

a reply to: DISRAELI

I appreciate your criticism. And it's up to me to prove my assertion. I don't know where along the line the original text was altered. But let me you an example of what I mean:

What blessings await you when people hate you and exclude you and mock you and curse you as evil because you follow the Son of Man. Luke 6:22-23

What if, the original text were slightly different and it would translate as follows:

What blessings await you when tyrant king hates you and exclude you and mock you and curse you as evil because you follow the Son of Man. Luke 6:22-23

This is my point. It seems to me Jesus was bucking authority by saying do not kill other people but love your enemy. Why would the "people" hate you for following Jesus. It makes no sense. But not listening to the Kings command to kill enemies of the state, that would be deserving of crucifixion.

Maybe I have it wrong. I just think there something off in the Bible when it comes to worshiping authority as the way to salvation. It seems to me to be more like a form of Satanism where there can be only one ruler. It seems to me inherent in the idea of love is some form of spiritual equality where no one is "ruling" over anyone else.

I guess it comes down to if you think man is best serve by fellowship or strong leadership. As if my rebellion makes a snip of difference to an omnipotent God. But it sure matters to someone like King James who really has no legitimate claim to be in authority over everyone else.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: dfnj2015
The thing is, was what they were translating from altered to serve the political aims of the monarchy.

No, there were no political changes in the translation either, and the proof of that statement is that nobody noticed any at the time. I repeat, they would have been noticed

I find it really hard to believe Jesus was just crucified over the splitting of hairs of church doctrine. But something as radical as you do not have to buy your absolution from the temple would certain be upsetting to the aristocracy.
It's hard to prove a negative. I just find it very odd that divine rule matches so closely to a particular type of government.

Whatever you find hard to believe, the fact remains that any such alterations would have been noticed at the time. For a start, there were eagle-eyed Roman Catholic controversialists ready to pounce on any holes in protestant teaching. Any alterations would have been a gift- "Look at those evil Protestants, making changes even in the text of the Bible". So the fact that nobody noticed any changes is the first proof that there were none.

After all, alterations would have been easy enough to spot. It would have been a simple matter of comparing that Bible with the other Bibles available in the rest of Europe.
For that matter, we can make the same comparison now. Any "political" texts you care to identify are also available in all the other translations of the Bible- Latin, French, Spanish, Norwegian...ad infinitum. Do you really think those translations all copied their text from the English version? Of course they didn't!

That brings me to the second "proof of a negative". The best evidence that there were no alterations is that you can't put your finger on a single example. Not one. You can't find any. I challenge you now to find a single "political" text that isn't also in the Latin and French and Spanish versions.

What is happening, I think, is that you are confusing "cause" and "effect". If the Bible text is similar to the opinion of James, that will be because the opinion of James was influenced by the Bible text, not the other way round. The evidence for that claim is that the Bible text came first, by about a thousand years.
Do you resemble your father? if so, do you think that is because your father inherited his features from you? Or is it the other way round? In the relation between cause and effect, the cause is always the one that comes first.

RE: "I challenge you now to find a single "political" text that isn't also in the Latin and French and Spanish versions. "

Do you know the original text was not in Latin? If the Latin, French, Spanish, and English versions were translated from the same Greek, they would be pretty similar. Again, I'm sure where along the line the text was modified. I just think Jesus's message would be more egalitarian.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I appreciate your criticism. And it's up to me to prove my assertion. I don't know where along the line the original text was altered. But let me you an example of what I mean:

What if, the original text were slightly different and it would translate as follows:

You are still missing the point. In that event, ALL THE OTHER TRANSLATIONS would have been showing the unchanged original text.
Let me emphasise- KIng James HAD NO POWER to change the Bible in the rest of Europe. If he had caused any alterations to be made, the difference would have shown up. In fact the differences would still be there now.
You need to show me an actual text that is DIFFERENT in the King James Bible, when compared with all the other Bibles of the world.

All you are offering at the moment is wishful thinking. "I would like the Bible to have said something else, so I will pretend that somebody changed it".

a reply to: dfnj2015

I just find it very odd that divine rule matches so closely to a particular type of government.

I have no doubt there are older examples, but open the Bible and read the First Book of Samuel. In it you will find the story of how God (or rather Samuel, in God's name) decided that the Hebrews needed a king and crowned, or rather anointed, a certain Saul to be that king. There's the divine right of kings in fine -- and the same story is recorded in the original Hebrew texts. It served Samuel's turn quite as well as it served King James's.

originally posted by: DISRAELI

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I appreciate your criticism. And it's up to me to prove my assertion. I don't know where along the line the original text was altered. But let me you an example of what I mean:

What if, the original text were slightly different and it would translate as follows:

You are still missing the point. In that event, ALL THE OTHER TRANSLATIONS would have been showing the unchanged original text.
Let me emphasise- KIng James HAD NO POWER to change the Bible in the rest of Europe. If he had caused any alterations to be made, the difference would have shown up. In fact the differences would still be there now.
You need to show me an actual text that is DIFFERENT in the King James Bible, when compared with all the other Bibles of the world.

I disagree. There was pretty strict control over church documents. There are lot of discrepancies that have been documented that you are choosing to ignore. Bart D. Ehrman has spent his whole life documenting them.

originally posted by: DISRAELI
All you are offering at the moment is wishful thinking. "I would like the Bible to have said something else, so I will pretend that somebody changed it".

See, that's exactly what people who want you to worship authority over everything else would want you to say. The text is perfect just the way it is preserves the power of the monarchy.

I think the question simple becomes why do you think an omnipotent God wants? I am the father my children. I want my children to grow to be strong and intelligent. I want them to be my equals when they are full grown. I don't want my children to worship me as if I am a better person than they are. I think there are political purposes in the words of the Bible. The king wants you to kill the "enemies" without question. That's the purpose of the Bible.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: dfnj2015

I just find it very odd that divine rule matches so closely to a particular type of government.

I have no doubt there are older examples, but open the Bible and read the First Book of Samuel. In it you will find the story of how God (or rather Samuel, in God's name) decided that the Hebrews needed a king and crowned, or rather anointed, a certain Saul to be that king. There's the divine right of kings in fine -- and the same story is recorded in the original Hebrew texts. It served Samuel's turn quite as well as it served King James's.

God forbid your tribe was ever labeled "heathens" or "pagan" by the state! Then killing the enemies of the state can be done without any moral consequence.

originally posted by: dfnj2015
I disagree. There was pretty strict control over church documents. There are lot of discrepancies that have been documented that you are choosing to ignore. Bart D. Ehrman has spent his whole life documenting them.

I can only repeat, there was no control by King James over the church documents of other countries. That is what we are talking about, remember. He was not in a position to issue instructions to the Pope and the King of France and the Holy Roman Emperor, telling them to make sure the Bibles in their countries conformed with the text of his own version.
I asked you to specify an example of a "political" difference between the King James version and other versions. You haven't found one yet.

I think the question simple becomes why do you think an omnipotent God wants?

No, this is an historical question about whether the text of a specific translation of the Bible has been changed.
You need to answer it historically. Produce an example of a "political" difference between the text of that translation and the text of the Bibles in the rest of the world.
If you can't, then you have no case against King James.

a reply to: DISRAELI

You make it sound so definitive. It's not. Yes, if everyone translated from the same Greek text all over Europe all the versions will be very similar. But where did that particular Greek translation come from. Maybe that one was chosen for specific reason. I think unless you reading the text in the original Hebrew or ancient Coptic, there may be some translations that are reflective of the values of the person doing the translation. For example, I believe I had read the word God in Coptic is gender neutral. That's a pretty HUGE difference if your God is not male.

Look, believe what makes you happy. I still think there's some kind of insidious Satanic authority worshiping evil in the Bible.

a reply to: dfnj2015

I have noticed the term "the inspired word of God," is a often term used to question why God did this or that with an attempt to show a weakness or myth about God and I caution Christians debating this and here is why:

The bible (66 books in total) were written by men WHO WERE INSPIRED BY GOD through visions and dreams they received. These revelations were given orally NOT written for an undetermined time until a SCRIBE wrote the words down on parchment, stone, etc.... MEANING WHAT?

Did GOD write the bible? NO who did? MEN....

Was literacy an issue ? YES ... most could not read or write ....only a select few who had money and/or influence.

Did SCRIBES add to or take away any part of the message? YES .......through translation

Is God's message clear enough to understand? YES.... to those who have been shown.

Your argument is a sign of weak to no faith...

Look inside and through prayer for your answers...

God bless you brother...